HR teams face compliance warning as Anton's Services loses appeal over wage and apprenticeship violations
A California court has upheld penalties against Anton’s Services Inc. for misclassifying workers and failing to comply with apprenticeship requirements on public works projects.
On November 18, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed a judgment against Anton’s Services Inc. after the company appealed penalties imposed by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). The case involved two San Diego County public works projects: the Torrey Pines Road improvement and the Voltaire Street bridge renovation. Anton’s Services acted as a subcontractor, performing clearing and demolition work.
The DLSE cited Anton’s for classifying its workers under “Tree Maintenance,” a lower-paid category, instead of “Laborer (Engineering Construction),” which the DLSE determined was the appropriate classification for the work performed. As a result, Anton’s was found to have underpaid prevailing wages required by California’s Prevailing Wage Law. The DLSE also determined that Anton’s failed to submit contract award information to apprenticeship committees before starting work, did not request the dispatch of apprentices, and did not employ apprentices in the required ratio.
Anton’s challenged the DLSE’s findings and penalties through an administrative appeal, which was unsuccessful. The company then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court, which was denied. On appeal, Anton’s argued that the superior court erroneously upheld the administrative findings regarding worker classification, wage payments, liquidated damages, and apprenticeship compliance.
The appellate court reviewed the administrative record and found substantial evidence supporting the DLSE’s determinations. The court concluded that Anton’s misclassified workers on both projects, failed to pay the proper prevailing wage, and did not comply with apprenticeship requirements. The court also upheld the imposition of penalties and liquidated damages, rejecting Anton’s arguments that it acted in good faith or that funds withheld by the contractor should offset liability. The court noted that evidence outside the administrative record was not admissible and limited its review accordingly.
For HR professionals, especially those involved in public works or government contracting, this case highlights the importance of accurate worker classification and strict compliance with prevailing wage and apprenticeship laws. The outcome demonstrates that failure to meet these requirements can result in significant penalties and that courts will uphold enforcement actions where substantial evidence supports regulatory findings.
The case serves as a reference point for compliance in public works employment practices. It underscores the need for HR teams to ensure all wage and apprenticeship obligations are met in accordance with state law.
